Gender Differences in Bacterial STIs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HEALTH ISSUE: The incidence of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is rising in Canada. If these curable infections were prevented and treated, serious long-term sequelae including infertility, and associated treatment costs, could be dramatically reduced. STIs pose a greater risk to women than men in many ways, and further gender differences exist in screening and diagnosis. KEY FINDINGS: Reported incidence rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and infectious syphilis declined until 1997, when the trend began to reverse. The reported rate of chlamydia is much higher among women than men, whereas the reverse is true for gonorrhea and infectious syphilis. Increases in high-risk sexual behaviour among men who have sex with men were observed after the introduction of potent HIV suppressive therapy in 1996, but behavioural changes in women await further research. DATA GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: STI surveillance in Canada needs improvement. Reported rates underestimate the true incidence. Gender-specific behavioural changes must be monitored to enhance responsiveness to groups at highest risk, and more research is needed on effective strategies to promote safer sexual practices. Geographic and ethnic disparities, gaps, and needs must be addressed. Urine screening for chlamydia should be more widely available for women as well as men, particularly among high-risk men in order to prevent re-infections in their partners. As women are more likely to present for health examinations (e.g. Pap tests), these screening opportunities must be utilized. Female-controlled methods of STI prevention, such as safer topical microbicides, are urgently needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".